Water Efficiency

Shopping for a Good Toilet or Showerhead?

This page was created to provide an aid for people shopping for quality low-consumption toilets and water-saving showerheads. I will try to update and
expand it during the month of March. This page is currently limited to a
discussion of low-consumption toilet performance, and particularly publicizing
evaluations of specific products. Customer surveys from Southern California
and New York are included, here, as well as a survey of water efficiency
professionals, a review by "Consumer Reports" from 1995 and recent articles
in "Fine Homebuilding" magazine. Readers are urged to visit the
WaterWiser site, which is the primary web resource for water-efficiency issues.

Some Background

The subject of consumer choice and toilet quality have become increasingly important as
the Energy Policy Act (EPACT) set new national minimum efficiency standards for water
closets, showerheads and faucets. The Federal law took effect in 1994, although perhaps a
dozen states had passed their own requirements for water-saving fixtures going back to
1992. Many communities in California, New York and Florida have adopted financial
incentives for the replacement of old toilets with low-consumption models. Low
consumption (LC) toilets consume 1.6 gallons per flush (gpf) compared to nominal 3.5 gpf
toilets which became the standard during the early 1980's and the nominal 5 gpf toilets
which preceded them. Water-saving showerheads flow at no more than 2.5 gallons per
minute (gpm) under standard water pressures, compared to older "high-flow" showerheads
which used anywhere from 4 - 7 gpm.

Like automobiles, refrigerators and many other consumer products, water closets do not
necessarily perform equally well. Minimum performance standards for water closets in the
United States are established by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME)/American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standards A116.19.2 and
A116.19.6. Minimum performance standards for showerheads are set through ASME/ANSI
A112.18.1M . The Canadian Standards Association sets similar standards. For some people,
water closets and showerheads which exceed these minimum standards, or which meet
specific personal standards, are necessary.

The ASME/ANSI test standard attempts to maintain and update a series of objective and
repeatable tests of plumbing products. Another approach has been to conduct "satisfaction
surveys" of end users. This more subjective approach asks many individuals what they like
or dislike about the toilet they use. The results of three such surveys are provided below.

A Few Thoughts About the Debate Over Water-Saving
Fixtures

Water-saving fixtures, and particularly toilets, have come in for some criticism and ribbing
of late. Some of it, depicted on popular television programs, is understandable - bathroom
behavior has always been good for a laugh. People who have spent a lot of time dealing
with toilets realize that Freud would have a field day with people's personal habits in the
bathroom. Further, people's adaptation to new technologies, social norms, etc. is and
should be the subject of satire. The deeper and more practical question is, do these water-saving products work?

Clearly they do, for the most part. While some people have had problems with low-consumption toilets, and those problems are usually very real, the surveys mentioned below
show that the majority of people are satisfied with water-saving products. 81% of the
respondents in the Los Angeles survey described below, and more than 90% in the MWD
survey indicated they would "likely" or "very likely" choose another low-consumption toilet
if they had to make the purchase again. People's reactions are clearly influenced by their
views about environmental benefits and how much they value saving money. In the New
York City survey, the responses from homeowners were more positive then those of
apartment tenants when both groups were asked about the same toilet model. Tenant
responses tended to be neutral while home owner responses were consistently higher. The
home owners saw the potential for saving money on their water/sewer bills while the tenants
saw no such potential and toilet replacement projects in New York were often conducted in
the setting of possible ongoing landlord/tenant tensions and the debate over rent regulation.
Responses to the Los Angeles survey were more positive than those in New York, very
possibly because the survey was dominated by home owners, many of whom were well
aware that they live in a water-short part of the country.

The move toward these more efficient products has meant design changes for some of them
and those design changes can affect performance. The ASME/ANSI performance standards
represent a MINIMUM standard, a standard which is clearly insufficient for some people.
A problem we certainly have encountered is that toilets are no longer a commodity item and
most people don't realize this when they go shopping. Builders tend to use the least
expensive products or are not properly informed about performance characteristics. Most
people are not accustomed to thinking of different quality toilets at varying prices. We
don't treat most other consumer products as simple commodities. We draw a distinction
between, "economy" and "quality" products of different kinds. If I purchased a "Yugo"
automobile, tried to use it a haul a boat or other cargo, or expected it to accelerate rapidly
entering highways, few people would agree with my concluding from that experience that
"cars don't work." I bought a low-cost, low-powered car and expected it to do things it
could not do well. I might have been perfectly happy with it in less-challenging driving
conditions, but people's knowledge of cars would not lead them to agree that my experience
with this one model should be used to extrapolate to all car models, or even all small cars.
To some extent, certainly, you "get what you pay for."

Most arguments favoring an end to Federal minimum water efficiency
standards simply ignore the substantial benefits provided by the standards.
Water savings of 6.5 billion gallons per day are projected to result from the
Federal standards through the year 2025.

New York City projects that it reduced water demand by 50-80 million gallons
per day through a toilet replacement program and Santa Monica saw a
reduction of 15%. In addition to environmental benefits, reductions in water
consumption and wastewater flows can provide significant savings in the
billions of dollars in flow-related water/wastewater infrastructure needs
projected by water and wastewater utilities over the next 20 years. These
savings represent dollars which will remain in people's pocketbooks and local
communities rather than going toward increased water/sewer bills.

What About These "Pressurized-Tank" Toilets?

The advent of water-saving toilets led to the development of new technologies
which aim to provide full performance at 1.6-gallons. "Pressurized-tank"("PT"), "Pressure-assisted," or "Flushometer-tank" toilets look like
regular gravity-flush (i.e., tank-and-bowl) toilets, but the usual porcelain tank
contains a metal or plastic tank which holds water under pressure, pressurized
by the building's own water pressure. When flushed, the pressurized water
provides a rapid and powerful flush. The trapway (channel which carries
waste from the bowl down to the waste line) in a PT toilet is just as large as the
trapway in a 3.5 or 5-gallon toilet, thereby virtually eliminating the problem of
clogs. Several high-price hotels around the country have installed PT toilets
without significant complaints and in some cases with fewer clog problems than
3.5-gallon toilets.

The two disadvantages of PT toilets may not be so major. They are more
expensive ($200 - $300), but a toilet is a 20-year investment for which the
additional cost will be paid off in water/sewer bill savings within a few years.
The other is noise, although the PT toilets are not very much noisier than others
and the flush cycle is very rapid.

All of the major toilet manufacturers produce PT models and some are also
marketing higher-tech toilets using compressed air or other means.

Customer Satisfaction Surveys

The charts below report the results of several "customer satisfaction" surveys
conducted by water utilities in Southern California and New York. The surveys
asked new toilet owners about "double flushing," toilet clogging, mechanical
problems, and sewer line problems. These questions were used to develop a "score"
for each model of new low-consumption toilet.. The New York City and
Metropolitan Water survey is based on a scale of "1" (Much Worse than the Old
Toilet), to "3" (About the Same as the Old Toilet) to "5" (Much Better than the Old
Toilet). The Los Angeles survey was very similar but was based on a scale of "1-10."

New York City's Customer Survey

As part of its Toilet Rebate Program, the New York City Department of
Environmental Protection mailed surveys to more than 60,000 people asking them
about the performance of their new low-consumption toilets. This included 55,500
apartment tenants, 3,250 homeowners, 1,000 apartment building managers and 300
licensed plumbers. They received responses from 8,500 apartment tenants (15%
response rate), 955 homeowners (29% response rate), 520 apartment building
managers (52% response rate) and 224 licensed plumbers (73% response rate). A
copy of the complete report can be requested from: New York City Toilet Rebate
Program, Bureau of Customer and Conservation Services, 13th Floor, New York City
Department of Environmental Protection, 59-17 Junction Blvd., Corona, New York
11368-5107

Where the table has an "NA" the number of responses from that group about that
particular toilet model

Here are the model-specific scores for the low-consumption toilets included in the
survey:

Low-Consumption Toilet Model Scores From Homeowners/Apartment
Residents
New York City Customer Survey

Toto Kiki CST703

Home: 3.41 +/- 0.59

Apt.: 3.11 +/- 0.86

Gerber Ultra Flush 25-642/644
("flushometer")

Home: 3.36 +/- 0.68

Apt.: 3.04 +/- 0.83

Gerber AquaSaver 21-701/702

Home: 3.31 +/- 0.61

Apt. : 2.94 +/- 0.89

Crane Cranemiser 3-662

Home: 3.35 +/- 0.54

Apt.: 2.97 +/- 0.94

American Standard Colony
("flushometer")

Home: NA

Apt.: 3.00 +/- 0.87

Crane Civic 3-195E ("flushometer")

Home: NA

Apt.: 2.94 +/- 0.85

Peerless Pottery Hydromiser 5160/5161

Home: 3.35 +/- 0.56

Apt.: 2.93 +/- 0.94

Crane Santa Fe C4241

Home: 3.03 +/- 0.51
Apt.: 2.64 +/- 0.89

Briggs Ultra Conservor 4775

Home: NA

Apt: 2.60 +/- 0.74

All Others

Home: 3.37 +/- 0.62 Apt.: 2.93 +/- 0.91

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power

This survey is similar to the New York City survey, except that the ratings go from
1-10 instead of 1-5. A copy of the complete report can be requested from: DWP
Water Conservation Publications, Box 111, Room 1348, Los Angeles, CA 90051.
The survey was based on responses from almost 7,200 respondents out of 26,000
surveys mailed.

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
Survey of Ultra-Low-Flush Toilet Users - October 1995

Model

Mean Score

95% Confidence Range

All Models

7.6

7.54 - 7.66

Toto Kiki CST-703

8.3

8.14 - 8.46

Great W.C. Corp. WC

7.9

7.56 - 8.24

Western Pottery Arris

7.6

7.22 - 7.98

Kohler Wellworth Lite
K3421

7.8

7.68 - 7.92

Universal Rundle Atlas
4090

7.6

7.32 - 7.88

Kohler Wellworth Lite
K3420

7.5

7.16 - 7.84

Kilgore Allegro 130-16

7.5

7.28 - 7.72

Briggs Abingdon 4775

7.1

6.62 - 7.58

Eljer Savoy 091-0120

6.8

6.58 - 7.02

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) is the wholesale
water supplier to most of the local water utilities in Southern California. These
surveys, conducted in 1995 and 1996, were similar to the New York and Los
Angeles surveys, with a score range of "1-5." Copies of this survey can be
obtained from William P. McDonnell, Public Affairs and Conservation Division,
Metropolitan Water District, P.O. Box 54153, Los Angeles, CA 90054-0153.

BRAND

STUDY

YEAR

SAMPLE

SIZE

AVERAGE

RATING

95% CONFIDENCE

RANGE

Kohler

1995

772

4.35

4.28 - 4.42

Toto Kiki

1995

240

4.33

4.23 - 4.43

Norris

1995

176

4.19

4.04 - 4.34

Universal Rundle

1995

84

4.02

3.76 - 4.28

Briggs

1995

100

3.83

3.63 - 4.04

Eljer

1995

920

3.60

3.49 - 3.71

Western Pottery

1996

81

4.46

4.28 - 4.64

Sterling

1996

83

4.32

4.12 - 4.52

American Standard

1996

90

4.30

4.13 - 4.46

Vitromex

1996

91

4.22

4.07 - 4.37

Kohler

1996

83

4.02

3.80 - 4.24

A Quick Note About "Confidence Limits/Ranges" and
"Standard Deviations"

The larger surveys on this page refer to either a "standard deviation" for the average
score, or a "confidence range/limit." Without spending time on a statistics lecture,
these are ways of describing how much the surveys responses vary from the average
("mean"). The larger the standard deviation or the wider the "95% confidence
range," the more varied the survey responses were around the average.

Survey of Water Management Professionals

In 1996 a survey of a group of professionals who run water efficiency programs was
conducted. This survey is probably not statistically significant, due to the small
numbers, but it does represent the views of a group of people who do not work for
toilet manufacturers, but who do "hang around toilets for a living." The survey also
includes views about water-saving showerheads.

The number in parentheses ( ) indicates the number of responses which mentioned a
model. Total points depend on the rating provided by the respondent. #1 on
someone's list received 10 points, #2 received 9 points, etc. Only gravity-flush tank-type toilets are included in the following ranking:

TOILETS

1. Toto Kiki CST-703 (9) 81 points

2. Kohler Wellworth Lite (7) 61 Points

3. Western Pottery (3) 26 points

4. American Standard Cadet/Colony (3) 24

5. Sterling Windham (3) 22

6. St. Thomas Marathon (3) 21

6. Universal Rundle Atlas (3) 21 points

7. Ifo Cascade (2) 20

SHOWERHEADS

1. Niagara "Earth" (7) 65 points (See Note)

2. Energy Technology Labs "Spa" (4) 39 points

3. RCI "Incredible Head" (3) 26 points

4. Niagara "Prism" (2) 20 points

5. Teledyne Water Pik (2) 19 points

Note: Four votes totaling 34 points were received for the A.M. Conservation
"Spoiler" and Brasscraft's massager showerhead. These products are very similar to
the Niagara "Earth" showerhead, except that the Brasscraft product is more
expensive.

Consumer Reports

The February 1995 issue of "Consumer Reports" includes their laboratory
evaluations of a number of toilets and showerheads. To my knowledge, the review
is not available online except through "America Online." If you are an AOL member,
use the key phrase "Consumer Reports" to access their area on AOL and then go
into the "Home" section.

CR's laboratory method for testing toilets was far more stringent than that used by
ASME/ANSI . The CR method assured that only "pressurized-tank" models and the
very best gravity-tank models would score well.

Fine Homebuilding Magazine

"Fine Homebuilding" did not systematically rate models, per se, but they have run
several interesting articles on selecting low-consumption toilets. Once you've
arrived at the Fine Homebuilding back issues page, run a search on the word
"toilets" and you'll be offered a choice of several worthwhile articles.

Some Thoughts About Choosing Toilets and Showerheads

As noted above, not all of these products perform equally, and some specific toilet
models may not be at all satisfactory for some people, particularly those who tend to
use large amounts of toilet paper. Upgrading the performance standards to assure
that every product will be satisfactory for everyone is one possibility, but that is
certainly not the case today. In the meantime, consider the following:

1.

Consider a pressurized-tank toilet. Yeah, they cost $200-300, but this is
something your family will use several times each day, should last 20 years
and will pay for itself over time in reduced water/sewer bills. If the entire
idea of a low-consumption toilet bothers you, go for one of these high-performance products. Myself, I don't think they're necessary, but I think
most people would be happier with a PT toilet.

2.

If you are the owner or manager of an apartment building, don't agree to a
toilet model without checking some installation references. Also, make sure
you don't have any pre-existing venting or other plumbing problems which
should be solved before toilets are replaced.

3.

Take a look at these surveys and use them as a general guide.

This page was created by Warren Liebold. The views expressed herein are those of
the author and not necessarily those of his employer or of any organization with
which he has an association. Email: wliebold@earthlink.net